There is a small minority of Americans who think President Obama is not liberal enough.
One such person says that it was mainly the Blue Dog Dems–the conservative Dems–who were defeated in the election, in the Repub avalanche we just experienced.
I recall the same thing happening in 06. The Dems won that election, and it was the RINO Repubs–the liberal Repubs–who were defeated mainly, mostly in the East, I think.
Does that mean the Repubs were too moderate or too liberal in 06? I don’t know.
But I do know that Dems also won the 08 election decisively.
I suspect the Tea Party took the 06 and 08 elections as a sign that the Repub Party is not conservative enough. So the Tea Partiers nominated radically conservative wackos like Joe Miller, Sharron Angle and Christine O’donnell. All three of them lost in the general election.
Karl Rove tried to warn the Tea Partiers about O’donnell but they would not
HE IS AS FAR LEFT AS YOU CAN GET, BUT UNLIKE MOST ON THE LEFT, HE ISN’T STUPID
Warren T | Dec 04, 2010
Obama needs to stand up to the Republicans and force them to filibuster to stop the middle class tax cut. Note: Clinton broke the repubs with the 1995 govt shutdown.
Brand X | Dec 04, 2010
He is not a liberal, he is a neocon like Bush.
Sir | Dec 04, 2010
This is a little long and maybe I’ll read it later. suffice it to say that Barack Obama IS Dick Cheyney’s cousin.
m i c | Dec 04, 2010
He is not Liberal enough.
Caribou "QUIT" Barbie
Over 2.3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus package was signed.
If you add the 125,000 (125,000 X 22 months since the stimulus bill was signed) new jobs that are needed to keep up with the expanding population base, that means there needs to be more than 5,000,000 new jobs just so the jobs market can get back where BHO inherited it.
The Dems have had two years with strong majorities in the house, senate, and the presidency. It sure looks to me like Nancy Pelosi, Reid, and Obama were wrong and unemployment, welfare, and food stamps don’t create jobs.
How can they still have any supporters after two years? Do you think BHO wasted too much time, political capital, and energy on Obamacare instead of focusing on the the economy and jobs market?
Are you better off today than you were two years ago?
Neither the republicans nor the democrats are addressing the underlying issue. Massive fraud perpetuated by the financial sector. Trillions or dollars are being pumped into the financial sector to save the banks from the consequences of their own actions and cover up the fraud. The banks should be allowed to fail, those responsible should be prosecuted, those participating in the cover up should also be prosecuted. The result will be an adjustment that will last six to twelve months and the economy
NDMA | Dec 04, 2010
Per Obama, Pelosi, and the Dems. the solution is taxing the wealthy. That will solve all our problems…
No I’m worse off now than 2 years ago. (The wife is better but she’s a govt. employee. Draw your own conclusion.)
Splitters | Dec 04, 2010
The problem with your "logic" is it in no way counts what the circumstances would be WITHOUT the stimulus.
scott b | Dec 04, 2010
Obama did his cut and run act for a photo op, like he did in the past four times when the numbers are released
Obama is a clear and present danger to our great country, and I will be glad when 2012 rolls around and the community agitator is sent packing
The real Obama is a Marxist | Dec 04, 2010
I saw this, and place more credibility in it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelo si/5062499482/sizes/l/
Ed | Dec 04, 2010
You should probably ask this guy:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index; _ylt=AoQW6valwBA4uhVJ8su2_5rsy6IX;_ylv=3 ?qid=20101204110147AAkQUjr
Pubik Whig | Dec 04, 2010
2.3 million jobs lost don’t you know that Herr leader has made a speech and assured us the there would have been many more jobs lost without the stimulus. He has personally saved 6 million jobs. He know that because he read it off the teleprompter. Remember he didn’t know how bad Bush left the economy so he just needs more time. And it is still Bush’s fault.
B17 | Dec 04, 2010
When people like Bill Gates that made his fortune in America quit hiring overseas people to do their work we will have more jobs available!
question212 | Dec 04, 2010
In Scott B’s own words rambling on about the stimulus. Spending, Spending, and more Spending. Taxing the rich is the only money the Dems can think of getting their greedy little hands on.
Tirebiter | Dec 04, 2010
Yes, we are better off today than we were two years ago. The economy is slowly growing and jobs are slowly coming back.
The problem is that the workforce is growing faster than the jobs. But this is far better than the last few years of the Bush administration when the workforce was growing and jobs were falling fast.
I know facts confuse you and I know my source doesn’t end in foxnews.com so it can’t be trusted but I will give it a shot anyway.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelo
Daren Dahl | Dec 04, 2010
Neither the republicans nor the democrats are addressing the underlying issue. Massive fraud perpetuated by the financial sector. Trillions or dollars are being pumped into the financial sector to save the banks from the consequences of their own actions and cover up the fraud. The banks should be allowed to fail, those responsible should be prosecuted, those participating in the cover up should also be prosecuted. The result will be an adjustment that will last six to twelve months and the economy
NDMA | Dec 04, 2010
What I mean by that is, that it seems Democrats and Republicans simply oppose eachother, and dont bounce ideas off one another to get a compromise that pleases everyone. To name two circumstances of this I look to Healthcare and the Bush tax cuts. It seems like whenever people talk about it they say something like, "The Democrats in the Senate are causing gridlock for our tax cuts to return" or, "The Republicans in the Senate might filibuster our healthcare law to shut it down completely". Isnt that kind of a good thing that we dont have 1 party rule? Like we had things like the Compromise of 1820, Compromise of 1850, Kansas Nebraska Act, Comrpomise of 1877, between the more conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans. Now something like a compromise lik "Let’s put the middle class tax breaks in effect for another 2 years and see what happens" or something like that. I mean, now that the GOP has the House and Dems have the Senate it sort of forces them to
Got replaced
by Divide & Conquer!
Menard K | Dec 04, 2010
It’s better to hold true to your ideals than compromise.
Mike 2.0 | Dec 04, 2010
Democraps and republishits are just two slight variations of the same party. They like to make believe they’re somehow very different and argue, as if that would change the fact that this country is run by the international corporations and oil companies.
La Revolucion | Dec 04, 2010
liberals don’t believe in it…
bobemac | Dec 04, 2010
It is a sports team mentality for money and power and it sucks.
Okie Aggie '68 | Dec 04, 2010
Now both parties are so polarized that they can’t think for themselves. Why not get rid of the two party system and vote strictly on issues. Oh wait, that would put lobbyist out of a job, we wouldn’t want to do something so radical as that.
BoJangles | Dec 04, 2010
Mob rule reigns supreme, regardless of the consequences. The moderates hold the power, but are rarely held in regard.
Scott Monster | Dec 04, 2010
Compromise is seldon good. Where is the good in insisting that the fool and the wise man meet each other half way. In most cases there is the correct choice and a multitude of incorrect choices to simply split the difference might be alright for settling on a price but not making a choice. In fact it is the non-thinking opposite of actually making a choice. If you can’t decide between food and poison mixing half and half doesn’t seem a brilliant choice to me.
As for our current
Roadkill | Dec 04, 2010
09.12.10
Updated 12:36 p.m. Eastern Time
Despite intense White House lobbying, House Democrats – who still control the chamber through the end of the year – voted Thursday morning not to take up the tax cuts “framework” worked out by President Obama and top Republicans.
“This bill in its current form will not be voted on,” Brendan Daly, spokesman for speaker Nancy Pelosi, told CBS News following the closed-door vote.
A House leadership aide tells CBS News that the voice vote shows just how upset Democrats are about the agreement. They object to its two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, including the highest earners, as well as relatively high threshold and low tax rate for the estate tax.
“The House was not consulted during the negotiations that produced this package, and our support cannot be taken for granted now or in the future,” Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a statement following the vote.
The vote, which is nonbinding, increases pressure on Senate Democrats to make changes to the $900 billion agreement to make it more palatable to their counterparts in the House.
“The president’s tax deal is suddenly in big trouble,” CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Bob Fuss said following the vote. The vote puts Pelosi in a bind, he added, because “even if the deal could pass with mostly Republican votes, her members are saying, ‘don’t let it.’”